Pocket Carry 9mm - PF9, PM9, LCP, R9

Folks, I'm looking at purchasing a 9mm for pocket carry. I already have a 642 so please refrain from suggesting I get one, it serves its purpose well, but I would like to obtain a 9mm for front pocket carry.

Out of these three, what would you purchase as of today (after the recall):

Kahr PM9
Kel-Tec PF9
Rohrbaugh R9

If you already own one, why did you purchase it and do you enjoy it/regret it?

Just reread this, and with all the forums/posts I've been reading I completely forgot to mark the LCP off my list once I decided to go 9mm only. Please disregard the LCP as a choice. Thank you.

LightningMan

December 4, 2008, 02:26 PM

Well I already have the Kahr PM9 but if I were in the market & had the money I would very much like to get the Rohrbaugh-9 as its the smallest 9mm out there and I would subsutute it for my Kel-Tec P3-AT when the PM9 is to large for days when shorts & t-shirt are all I want to wear. LM

jocko

December 4, 2008, 02:38 PM

PM9 rides in my jeans pocket 24/7

Dr_2_B

December 4, 2008, 07:22 PM

I voted for the PM9. I have the PF9 and I love it. But I believe the PM9 is an awesome pistol.

I'd love to have the R9 I guess but it's just so much $$$.

jc650

December 5, 2008, 04:57 PM

If Im spendin your money its the r9, if Im buying it would be the Kahr. The r9 seems really cool but thats a lot of money for me. If price is no object go for it.

trekgod3

December 5, 2008, 05:01 PM

Not on the poll, but I pocket carry my P11 in a Grandfather Oak kydex holster all the time. Sure, its bigger than the PF9, but its also got 13 rounds of 9mm ready to go.

trackaddict88

December 5, 2008, 05:55 PM

The little Kahr is too small for my hands. The Keltec isn't. My stepdaughter likes both but bought the KT. The R9 too expensive, too small as well.

I voted for the Rohrbaugh only because you stated that you wanted it for "pocket" carry. Some people can carry the PM9 and the PF9 just fine in a pocket, but for me personally, they are both a bit too large.

On the other hand, if you have been pocket carrying a J-frame comfortably, the PM9 and PF9 may not be too large for you. In fact you may be able to carry the double-stack Kel-Tec P11 and have more ammo available.

Of the three (PM9, PF9, P11) the PM9 is a bit nicer to look at and also costs a bit more, but all are reliable, accurate and well suited for defensive use.

Bobo

Jim PHL

December 6, 2008, 10:41 AM

I voted for YOU to buy the R9.;) I used to pocket carry a KelTec P3AT. Nothing carries better in a pocket as far as I'm concerned, but the .380 as a defensive round is what had me get rid of it. The Rohrbaugh is the only thing that comes close in size and fires a 9mm. When you're talking about guns that size and weight, subtle differences are more significant than most would think. For example there's little difference "on paper" between a Glock 26 and a PM9 but try putting them both in your pocket and you'll see a huge difference. The difference between the Kahr and the Rohrbaugh would, I think, be equally "drastic". (Can't tell you for sure, I can't even afford to HOLD an R9!)

JohnBT

December 6, 2008, 11:52 AM

R9. After years of looking at and handling Kahrs I just couldn't warm up to them for front pocket carry. The R9, among its other attributes, is just small and thin enough to suit me for front pocket carry.

Back pocket, coat pocket and jacket pocket allow me to carry something a little larger, but I end up using the R9 because I like it.

John

IMTHDUKE

December 6, 2008, 11:58 AM

Me too....JohnBT

outerlimit

December 6, 2008, 02:48 PM

I had an R9 and ended up selling it. I do not miss it. Well okay maybe a little for certain things, but not much. I could never get used to the trigger pull or recoil. My hand would shake after putting ten rounds through it. Though a couple times I did put around 50 rounds through it at a time. I liked the carbon fiber grips, because my hands sweat easily, and it seemed like they became even more grippy when my hands were wet. The G-10 grips are a joke for a gun in this price range.

In the end I decided the Kahrs are just a better all around gun. I think the PM9 only weighs about 1 oz more than the R9. And with the PM9 you get better sites and more control. 8 round backup mags. And gun mag interchangeability with other Kahrs.

When I carried the R9 I did not really feel "armed". It was so hard to hit anything with it.

The R9 just seemed rinky-dink and not worth the money. If they ever come out with a stainless steel or titanium frame, I MAY consider owning one again, on the condition that they bring back the carbon fiber grips. There, how's that for contradicting myself?

I'll leave the LCP out of the discussion because I would not carry a .380

JohnBT

December 6, 2008, 08:23 PM

You must be the first person to ever use R9 and rinky-dink in the same sentence. :)

The R9 should kick more, it's substantially lighter than the PM9. Heck, my S&W 442 is lighter than the PM9. The 442 is only 15.8 ounces.

According to Kahr, the PM9 weighs 16 ounces.

According to Rohrbaugh, the R9 weighs 12.8 ounces. (And only 14.3 w/ a mag.)

(Why do the makers advertise the gun's weight without the mag? I suppose if one does it, they all have to do it to compete.)

Let's see, 3.2 divided by 12.8 = 25%

Or, 3.2 divided by 16 = 20%

Hand strength is important and can be improved. I shot my R9 101 times the first trip out with it before I quit, and I was 56 back then. Maybe I'm just old and insensitive. :)

John

IMTHDUKE

December 6, 2008, 09:24 PM

JohnBT.....you old and insensitive.....going to have to agree with your R9 figures:)

rinky-dink? wow

outerlimit

December 7, 2008, 03:06 AM

You must be the first person to ever use R9 and rinky-dink in the same sentence.

The R9 should kick more, it's substantially lighter than the PM9. Heck, my S&W 442 is lighter than the PM9. The 442 is only 15.8 ounces.

According to Kahr, the PM9 weighs 16 ounces.

According to Rohrbaugh, the R9 weighs 12.8 ounces. (And only 14.3 w/ a mag.)

(Why do the makers advertise the gun's weight without the mag? I suppose if one does it, they all have to do it to compete.)

Let's see, 3.2 divided by 12.8 = 25%

Or, 3.2 divided by 16 = 20%

Hand strength is important and can be improved. I shot my R9 101 times the first trip out with it before I quit, and I was 56 back then. Maybe I'm just old and insensitive.

John

John, I do believe that's incorrect and I was correct originally. It's been a long time since I went on the Kahr website, but I have a pretty good memory (even though I'm a dipstick) and I was correct the Kahr PM9 is listed as 14oz. (without mag) The R9 weight you listed of 12.8oz I'm pretty sure is also without magazine. Nevermind it is according to you, I just read your post again while editing this post of mine. I have a PM9 I can put on my postal scale without mag to make absolute certain, but I don't really feel like unloading it right now. :D

I believe the R9 kicks more because the grip is slimmer, not so much because of the 1.2oz less of weight. I also use a Pachmayr slip on grip on my PM9 which helps. I had one on my R9 for a short while. It did help with recoil a little, but seemed to defeat the purpose of the pistol, so I removed it.

Take down of my R9 was NOT fun. It was actually quite difficult because the pin did not want to push out and did not get much easier in the following two cleanings before I sold it.

Make no mistake though, the R9 DOES conceal easier than the PM9, that's a fact.

But it's only a problem if you're forced to wear tight pants with small pockets. (which sometimes happens depending on work environment).

I really believe the weight difference is almost a non-issue. I think a PM9 stoked with 115gr. bullets would probably weigh less than or similar to an R9 with 147gr.

http://www.eutechinst.com/techtips/tech-tips29.htm

Nevermind, I just did the math and an 147gr. stoked R9 would still weigh about an ounce less I think. It's late and I'm tired, I'll double check later. :)

jocko

December 7, 2008, 06:57 AM

the kahr PM9 without magazine is 14 ounces, with magazine 15.9 ounces. never can tell anymoe how these mfg-ers list the weights of their guns.

I agree that they should be weighed with magazine. Kahr doesn't, Rohrbaugh doesn't, kt doesn't.

Can't really tell much difference in the weight difference of the PM9 and the R9 when in the pocket. Of course the R9 is still even smaller yet,

That being said, I like my PM9 alot better.. as a total shooting gun. I have 17,800 rounds through my PM9 and never an issue, just not sure the R9 could take that punishment, nor for sure the shooter behind it..

I have weighed my PM9 with my trigger scales and it comes in at + - 14 ounces.. Don't know what webb site your looking at , but the kahr webb site shows the PM9 at 14 ounces